Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Deborah
|
|
Last Name
|
Barnette, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/2/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0867-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Putnam County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
CB-Service
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Aide
|
|
Topics
|
Supplemental contracts
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants as Bus Aides with supplemental bus
assignments are being wrongfully denied benefit pay and
whether they are entitled to supervisory aide pay.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W.Va. Codes §§18A-4-16; §18A-5-8; §18A-4-8; §18A-4-16.
|
|
Related Cases
|
Petry v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-20-380
(Mar. 18, 1997); Flint v. Board of Educ., 207 W. Va. 251 (W. Va.
1999); Robert L. Lanham, et al. v. Putnam County Board of
Education, Docket No. 2008-1691-CONS (July 14, 2009); Black
v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-06-426 (Feb. 28, 1994).
|
|
Keywords
|
Discrimination, violation of uniformity, supplemental contracts
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants are each employed by Respondent, Putnam
County Board of Education, as full-time special needs bus aides,
who have supplemental contracts. Supplemental contracts are
for work in addition to an individual’s regular full-time
employment. There exists a difference in the bus aides’
supplemental contracts and the supplemental contractual terms
and responsibilities of bus operators who carry out supplemental
bus runs. Grievants allege that the failure of Respondent to
compensate the supplemental contracts equally constitutes
discrimination. Grievants also contend each is entitled to
supervisory aide pay for the supplemental contract assignments.
County boards of education may post and enter into
supplemental contracts with professional and service employees
outside of employees’ regular contract terms. W.Va. Code §18A-
4-16. Bus operators and bus aides are classified differently and
perform different functions. Grievants did not prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that their supplemental
assignments were anything other than “as needed.” Grievants
have not established that Respondent was obligated to pay them
if no runs occurred, or that the Board of Education was arbitrary
and capricious in not paying bus aides under the same terms as
bus operators. Grievants have not established discrimination or
non-uniformity by a preponderance of the evidence. Further
Grievants are not entitled to supervisory aide pay for the
identified supplemental contract assignments. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again